Author: best-essay

What is your job title, what type of crime scenes have you been processed and how long have your been in your current postion?

There are two parts to the Final Essay, both parts combined must be at least 1500 words. The student must utilize APA format and utilize at least (4) scholarly references. A separate Word document must be submitted for each part of the essay. You will submit a Word document in response to Part I and a separate Word document in response to Part II.
Read all of these instructions before you begin!! This is a two part assignment. The first part (Part I) will focus on the crime scene assessment, primarily focusing on blood evidence. The second part (Part II) will focus on Courtroom Testimony.Part 1- The Crime SceneYou are the crime scene investigator and are working a homicide scene. You will select any ONE of the following type of criminal events listed below and explain in detail how you would document the crime scene, collect the evidence and the approach used to process and assess bloodstain evidence at a crime scene. For example you may wish to follow the Decision Map with explanation and examples. Be sure to provide Bloodstain characteristics and Analysis, etc.The following scenes A through C are general descriptions, you may add any additional information, evidence, you wish to complete the scene to your needs, such as time frame, weather conditions, etc.Crime Scene A:You have a shooting situation inside a home. A male is found lying on his bed to his left side, with a gunshot wound to the right side of his head, the weapon is on the floor. The bed is directly against the wall of the bedroom. You have bloodstains on the weapon, bedding, victim and wall.Crime Scene B:You have a shooting situation in which the male victim is found sitting in the drivers side seat slumped over the steering wheel, he had been shot in the back of his head multiple times. You have blood stain evidence on the steering wheel, driver side door, driver side window, and windshield and in the rear of the vehicle on the floor and rear seat.Crime Scene C:You have a female victim found lying in a hallway vestibule of her apartment building. She has knife wounds to her neck area, abdomen, to her right side, both of her hands and forearms. She is lying in a pool of blood between the entrance door from the outside and entry door leading to the interior of the apartment building. The inner vestibule has on one wall a buzzer entry system with the apartment listings. The entry doors are made of wood that border large glass windows. You will find bloodstain evidence on all the walls, floor and doors and buzzer system. The Final Essay must be at least 1500 words total for Part 1 & 2. The student must utilize APA format and utilize at least (4) scholarly references.Part 2: Courtroom testimony:You will defend your actions involving bloodstain evidence within a courtroom environment. This aspect of the assignment will be addressed as a crime scene technician. You will answer the questions posed to you by the prosecution and the defense. You will manage this part not as a scientific expert, but defending your actions in processing the crime scene.[DE-direct examination on witness stand by the prosecutor]
[CE-cross examination on the witness stand by the defense]
You will base your responses on the crime scene you selected above.Direct Examination by Prosecution:DE-1: What is your job title, what type of crime scenes have you been processed and how long have your been in your current postion?DE-2: What type of training do you have in this field?DE-3: How did you get your assignment to go to the crime scene?DE-4: When you arrived at the scene, who did you meet and how was the scene secured?DE-5: Can you explain to the jury what you mean by processing a crime scene for bloodstain analysis?DE-6: Can you explain to the jury why you collected the bloodstained evidence from this scene?
Cross Examination by the Defense:
CE-1: Can you explain how you documented the bloodstain evidence you collected?CE-2: What were you told by the detectives about the crime scene?CE-3: Is it fair to say, you identified and collected bloodstain evidence based on what the detectives told you?CE-4: Did even look for evidence that could show or demonstrate that someone other than my client committed this crime?CE-5: is it possible that cross-contamination occurred at any point in your collection of the evidence or during the analysis of the evidence?The Final Essay must be at least 1500 words (total for both parts). The student must utilize APA format with the exception of the testimony which can be done in question/answer format. You must utilize at least (4) scholarly references.

What steps would you take to determine if any of the people present at the scene may have been involved in the homicide or are merely witnesses?

Your Final Exam consists of a crime scene scenario. Take the time to think about the content of this course and how it applies to the homicide scene described below. Your final essay should be a minimum of 800 words and include a minimum of one scholarly reference. As a Crime Scene Investigator, you respond to a homicide scene at a convenience store/gas station at 3am. Upon arrival, the first officer at the scene informs you that there was an additional employee present during the incident as well as a mother and small child who witnessed the crime.
You also find a deceased victim with a through and through gunshot to the chest. Other visible items: 1. Lottery Ticket on counter with a bloody, smeared print on it.
2. Black 9mm semi-automatic gun under ice cream cooler. 3. Pack of cigarettes removed from a carton as well as the ripped open carton on the floor in front of counter.
4. Casing by the glass store entry door.
5. Six pack of cold beer on the floor near the beer cooler. 6. Spent bullet embedded in the wall behind the counter. 7. Spilled cigar box of cash on the floor next to the deceased.
8. Fresh cigarette butt only half smoked outside the store in the parking lot. A. Explain what you would process for fingerprints and why. What processes will you use at the scene? Back at the Laboratory? B. What steps would you take to determine if any of the people present at the scene may have been involved in the homicide or are merely witnesses? C. How would you package the evidence that pertains to the fingerprint analysis?

What are the main opportunities provided by the Gioia method for coding and analyzing qualitative data in the social sciences?

1. Exam assignment research design
Below you find the introduction to a scientific article that reports on a study of the use of external scientists to solve R&D problems in firms. Your task is to analyze the way the authors formulate their research problem, using Van de Ven (2007). In particular, you can draw upon chapter 3 in your analysis. Also state an argument whether you approve to the way the authors formulated their research problem or not. Your discussion should be no longer than 500 words.

3

4
2. Exam assignment qualitative methods
Based on the methods literature and your own experience with working with qualitative data and analysis, discuss the benefits and drawbacks of qualitative data analysis and coding according to the proposed Gioia method (as for instance discussed in the Gioia, Corley and Hamilton, 2013, paper). Discuss the following (Maximum 750 words total):
a) What are the main opportunities provided by the Gioia method for coding and analyzing qualitative data in the social sciences? What are the main benefits of this approach compared to other means of analyzing and coding qualitative data? Draw on the Gioia paper but also other methods literature to argue for this approach.
b) What are the major drawbacks of this approach to analyzing and coding qualitative data? Reference methods literature to argue for your answer.

5
3. Exam assignment quantitative methods
For the quantitative part of the exam, you are tasked with evaluating the methods section found below. Please remember to take into account the different themes covered in the three quantitative sessions when evaluating the data and methods, and answering the questions.
1. Comment on the values related to exploring the data, reliability and construct validity, and the regression analysis. Are they OK and if so why, and are there some values that are more questionable, and if so explain why? (25 credits) (maximum 500 words)
2. Have we carried out all the necessary tests for a rigorous analysis? Do you miss some tests that you would add, and if so why and what would they add? (10 credits) (maximum 250 words)
3. Interpret the results vis–vis our hypotheses. (5 credits) (maximum 250 words)
HYPOTHESES
H1: Greater headquarters involvement in the development of an innovation will positively affect transfer performance effectiveness. H2: Greater use of formal hierarchical governance tools by headquarters in the innovation transfer process will negatively affect transfer performance effectiveness. H3: Greater use of expatriates from the sending subsidiary to the receiving subsidiary during the transfer will positively affect transfer performance effectiveness. H4: An established relationship between the sending and receiving subsidiaries will positively affect transfer performance effectiveness. H5: Relationship building between the sending and receiving subsidiary will positively affect transfer performance effectiveness.
DATA AND METHODS
The data used in this research was collected between 2002 and 2005 and covers 169 intra
MNE innovation transfer projects in great detail. Innovations in subsidiaries were identified
through snowball sampling, which is appropriate when the population is difficult to define
and no comprehensive listing exists (Hair et al., 2006). The data can be traced back to 72
6
innovation development projects hosted by 63 subsidiaries belonging to 23 different MNEs
headquartered in the US and Europe. The sending subsidiaries span 14 countries and the
receivers 31 countries.1 Different industries are represented in the sample, for example,
manufacturing, telecommunications, transportation, and the steel industry. The innovation
selection criterion was based on the novelty and specific value to the organization. This
follows the 2005 OECD definition of innovations, that is, the implementation of a new or
significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a
new organizational method in business practices, workplace organization or external
relations (p. 47). This selection was done by the innovating/developing subsidiary.
Moreover, the innovations had to have the potential of being transferred and they also had to
have been completed one to 10 years prior to the interview. Sampling innovations that have
transfer potential means that the dataset contains some innovations that have not been subject
to transfer. These innovations are excluded in the present analysis.
One potential sample bias is that it only contains successful innovations, in terms of
having been developed. However, given the question at hand, this bias is almost intrinsic
since the transfer of unsuccessful innovations is highly unlikely and would not add anything
to the MNEs competitive advantage. Successful in this sense does not imply subsequent
market success.
The data was collected through face-to-face interviews on site at the subsidiaries where
the respondent answered a structured questionnaire – an approach similar to surveys with the
advantage of being able to target the respondent in person and knowing exactly who answers
the questionnaire. The respondents had been involved in the innovation development and
were usually R&D managers, project managers, or subsidiary CEOs. In relation the transfer
projects, even if the data was collected at the sending subsidiary, the innovations had been
1 More specifically, the senders are located in: Sweden, Taiwan, Italy, France, UK, US, Germany, Belgium, Finland, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.
7
transferred to more than one receiver (on average, the innovations in our sample were
transferred to 2.35 receivers). This allows respondents to compare, for instance, transfer
effectiveness across projects. The questionnaire had been pre-tested in two pilot interviews
and minor changes were made in order to eliminate ambiguous questions and phrasings as
well as to exclude erroneous indicators. By having access to managers with detailed
knowledge of the specific innovations, a deeper understanding could be gained (Denrell,
Arvidsson and Zander, 2004), as well as the possibility to discuss the questions with the
respondents. This approach allows targeting the appropriate respondent and detecting
inconsistencies in the answers during the interview, hence increasing reliability and face
validity of the data.
Measures
The advice of Boyd, Gove and Hitt (2005) was followed and single measure indicators were
avoided. Multiple indicators were used in both the dependent and independent variables. This
approach minimizes measurement error, is parsimonious, and offers a multifaceted
representation of the underlying construct (Hair et al., 2006). Additionally, as recommended
by Cox (1980), seven-point Likert-type scales were used to obtain the data on innovation
transfer in MNEs. Besides the subjective estimations by the respondents, distance measures
using secondary data, patenting, and size were included as control variables. The constructs
were identified in an iterative process where coefficient alphas as well as theoretical issues
were considered (Churchill, 1979; Nunnally, 1978). The constructs were theoretically valid
and empirically verified. Subsequently, factor analysis was used in order to confirm the
constructs discriminant validity.
8
Dependent variable
The dependent variable – knowledge transfer effectiveness – reflects the adoption and use of
the transferred knowledge within the receiving unit. The responses focused on circumstances
related to completeness, ease, and timeliness of the adoption and use and follows previous
recommendations and discussions in the literature (Kostova and Roth, 2002; Leonard-Barton
and Sinha, 1993; Repenning, 2002; Szulanski 1996). Compared to earlier studies,
concentrating on the extent of knowledge flows between firm subsidiaries our method of
depicting transfer performance is the degree of transfer effectiveness in terms of investigating
the actual adoption and use of the innovation at the receiving subsidiary (Ciabuschi et al.,
2011a). This reflects key ideas in the knowledge based view (Grant, 1996) and reflects
utilization of transferred knowledge.
Transfer performance effectiveness is measured as a four-item construct where the
respondents were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree)
whether: ,
counterpart adopted the innovation very quickly>, and
adopt by this counterpart>. One final item was included in this construct and was measured
on a similar scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very high):
has been completed>. The internal construct reliability (cronbachs alpha) was 0.817. These
four items were summed and averaged to form the dependent variable in the following
statistical analysis. The dependent variable is distinct from other variables in the analysis, as
Table 1 shows.
9
Independent variables
The first dimension of headquarters subsidiary-level influence is whether or not they have
been involved in the innovation development of the innovation subject to transfer and build
on and extend the attention-based view (Bouquet, Morrison and Birkinshaw, 2009; Ocasio,
1997). Headquarters involvement in innovation development is captured in a four-item
construct where the respondents were asked to indicate, on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to
7 (totally agree) whether:
innovation>,
innovation>, , and
MNE HQ has taken important initiatives for developing the innovation>. The four indicators
were summed and averaged in order to form the construct used in the regression analysis.
Internal construct reliability was 0.908.
The use of formal hierarchical governance tools and sanctions by headquarters is
captured by four items and is similar to measures employed by Gates and Egelhoff (1986) and
Tsai (2002). The respondents were asked to indicate, on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 7
(totally agree), to what extent:
innovation with the counterpart>, and
any sanctions by HQ with the counterpart (Reversed)>. Moreover, the respondents were
asked to indicate on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) whether the transfer of the
innovation was driven by: and . These
four items were summed and averaged to form the construct. The cronbachs alpha of this
construct is 0.632. The use of subsidiary expatriates is reflected in a two-item construct and
builds on Gupta and Govindarajans (2000) measure, and Galbraiths (1973) integrative
mechanisms. The respondents were asked to indicate, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to
7 (very high):
10
managers was used>. The respondents were also asked to indicate, on a scale from 1 (not at
all) to 7 (very much):
personnel between the developer and the receiver>. The indicators were added and averaged
to form the scale. The cronbachs alpha returned with a value of 0.743.
Established relationships, that is, dyadic transfer experience in the sender-receiver
relationship, is a two-item construct where the respondents indicated to what extent, (besides
the focal innovation discussed during the data collection) on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7
(very much): and
shared knowledge>. The indicators were summed and averaged in order to form the
construct, which had a coefficient alpha of 0.738. This construct builds on literature
highlighting experiences role in knowledge transfer (Ingram and Baum, 1997).
Finally, relationship building between the sending and receiving subsidiaries during the
innovation transfer was captured using a three-item construct drawing on Ghoshal and
Bartletts (1988) framework concerning socialization mechanisms as well as the indicators
used by Persson (2006). The respondents were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 (not at all)
to 7 (very high) the level of use of: ,
teams, project groups etc.> and
regarding the innovation transfer>. The indicators were summed and averaged. Cronbach
alpha was 0.732.
Control variables
In order to more fully specify the model, a number of control variables were introduced. Age
was included since older subsidiaries are more established in their business networks and
have a tendency to be more autonomous (Forsgren, 1990); they can also exhibit a higher
innovative capability (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Foss and Pedersen, 2002). To control for
11
age, the logarithm of the number of years the subsidiary had been operating on the market
was included in the regression equation.
Size measured as the natural logarithm of the number of developing subsidiary
employees is used as a proxy for many subsidiary-related characteristics. Research has shown
that large subsidiaries have greater intra-firm bargaining power (Mudambi and Navarra, 2004)
and size can also affect knowledge transfer even if the knowledge has a low relevance (Yang
et al., 2008). Research has also used size as one indicator for valuable knowledge stock,
which can be of greater overall value for the MNE (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000).
Basic research is captured with the help of a dummy variable. If the subsidiary
conducted research considered to be core, the variable was coded 1; if the subsidiary did not
conduct any basic research, the observation was coded 0. Knowledge developed by a
subsidiary performing core activities is likely to be more easily adopted, building on
absorptive capacity logic. In order to control whether knowledge sharing activities are
stimulated in the MNE, this was included as a single-item variable. The respondents were
asked to indicate, on a scale of 1 to 7, how important knowledge sharing was in the
performance evaluation made of them. This has been shown to have a positive impact on
knowledge transfer flows in previous studies (Bjrkman et al., 2004). To control for the target
subsidiarys knowledge-receiving ability, we employed a measure capturing unit similarity of
the innovation transfer partners. This is a two-item construct capturing how similar the sender
and receiver are regarding technological and organizational features. The respondents were
asked to indicate, with regard to the receiver, on a scale of 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (neither)
up to 7 (totally agree) whether: and
.2 The indicators were summed
and averaged, thus forming the construct. Internal reliability was 0.738. A dummy variable
2 These items were reverse coded in order to capture the similarities between the subsidiaries involved in the knowledge transfer.
12
indicating whether the innovation subject to transfer was patented or not was included in the
model. Patenting proxy codification of knowledge and connects to the potential ease with
which the knowledge might be transferred (Tallman and Chacar, 2011). Additionally,
distances and differences between countries in which subsidiaries are located may influence
knowledge transfer. Therefore, we controlled for distances in a number of dimensions. The
geographic distance between the locations was calculated for each transfer project. The
number of kilometers was calculated using MapCrow. This measure was transformed into the
natural log of the distance measure and is consistent with the approach of other studies using
geographic distance (e.g., Hansen and Lovs, 2004). Cultural distance was controlled for by
using Kogut and Singhs 1988 index, expressed as:
4 CDj= {(Iij IiN)2/Vi}/4 , i=1
where CD is the cultural distance between the subsidiary host countries, Iij is the score
of the receiving subsidiarys country on the ith dimension, and IiN is the score of the sending
subsidiarys country in this dimension. Vi represents the score variance in the specific
dimension. Institutional distance was measured building on the approach of Gaur et al. (2007)
and Xu, Pan and Beamish (2004). The institutional dimensions found in the Executive
Opinion Survey of the Global Competitiveness Report (2005) were explored and a factor
analysis was conducted (principal component with varimax rotation and Kaiser
normalization). The institutional environment is captured by a seven-item construct that
loaded on a single factor having a coefficient alpha of 0.961. This data was matched to our
data calculating the institutional distance between the host countries of the sending and
receiving subsidiaries. The relative economic differences were captured by estimating
differences in GDP per capita between the host countries of the subsidiaries (Tsang and Yip,
13
2007). Data was obtained through the Total Economy Database (2006). Following Tsang and
Yip (2007), we created a measure for relatively more developed countries in relation to the
other part of the dyad. This measure can be expressed as:
ln(GDPsender)-ln(GDPreciever) if GDPsender GDPreciever and = 0 if GDPsender < GDPreceiver Further assessment of the data The use of perceptual measurements can be problematic because of social desirability and self-assessment bias. This is mitigated by the face-to-face interviews. All relevant indicators were included in a principal component factor analysis (principal component with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization, see Table 1). The KMO-value returned at 0.638. The Bartletts test of sphericity was at a 0.001 significance level. In the principal component analysis, six factors were extracted with an eigen value above 1. The seventh factor returned with an eigen value of 0.837. Some cross-loadings were observed: the first occurred for the item of headquarters instruction to share the innovation with the counterpart on the construct of headquarters participation during the development with a value of 0.436. The second cross-loading relates to the respondents reporting whether the innovation transfer occurred without any sanctions from headquarters (reversed) with a value of 0.354 on the construct of headquarters participation during the development.

Compare and contrast the key factors of modern capitalistic entrepreneurship with those of either Middle Eastern OR Chinese Entrepreneurship.

As for the first essay this was the feedback received. “As regards Weber and the Protestant Ethic, core arguments and features are identified and systematically illuminated. For instance, the following are systematically illuminated: Calvin, Luther, ascetic, pre-destination, individualism. That said, rationalism could be better integrated. While Tawney’s gentry example is relevant, greater explanation is required. Schumpeterian innovation and creative destruction, disequilibrium and new combinations are identified and richly explained. The Victorian England/Industrial Revolution examples are relevant and pertinent. Kirznerian entrepreneurship is identified and explained. But no examples are integrated. The Mengarian aspects demonstrate broader reading and original thought. However, why is Weber and Economy & Society not integrated? e.g. gesellschaftung, gemeinschaftung, trust etc.” Speak about the missing topics and please do not duplicate anything from the previous assignment.

Identify and examine theories of leadership associated with corporate entrepreneurship or Explain the relationship between organisation structure and corporate entrepreneurship.

Identify and examine theories of leadership associated with corporate entrepreneurship or Explain the relationship between organisation structure and corporate entrepreneurship. Detailed instructions about the prompt is found in the document I’ve attached named “guidelines for essay”. The readings and the slides are of equal importance and both are crucial as mentioned above.

how the mobile cloud computing important now

how the mobile cloud computing important now
2-some information about the mobile cloud computing components and architectures?
3-what is the most current advancement in mcc now ?
4-what is challenges facing the current mcc now?
5-what the future possible improvement for mcc?
6-some points about the importance of offloading task to the cloud in term of limitations, of mobile devices computions power, cpu, memory , battery live , bandwidth , ..etc
7-the security challenges facing the mcc.Please use the previous elements(1-7) as the heading and highlight them following by relevant written materials
Also please use proper references and the references should be recent not before 5 years